Monday, August 31, 2015

Grits remains surprised that MSM coverage of new laws taking effect in Texas September 1st have omitted the state's most important sentencing reform since the Lege altered probation and parole rules in 2007: Raising theft thresholds for property crimes to account for inflation since the levels were set in 1993.

As Grits earlier had summarized, the measure passed as an amendment after a senate bill failed to get a House floor vote. The resulting legislation will reduce incarceration for property crimes at the margins, a move this blog has advocated for years.
The most immediate budget impact will come from shifting state-jail felony charges
to the misdemeanor courts. (The threshold at which theft becomes a felony increased from $1,500 to $2,500.) The change should also reduce the proportion of theft cases
charged as serious felonies based solely on the property valuation, reducing incarceration in the long term.

By keeping the old thresholds for so long, as each year went by, it essentially became a felony in Texas to steal less and less stuff, creating a form of incarceration creep that ratcheted up penalties for lesser offenses without the Legislature doing anything. One may have preferred they index the thresholds to inflation going forward, but this was a needed short-term fix.

Coupled with legislation to allow state jail felons to earn "diligent participation credits" for participation in education, vocational, treatment, or work programs, and the 84th Legislature may have created room for the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to close a couple more state jail unit sooner than later.

These were incremental changes, but significant ones. Heaven knows why the press hasn't given them the profile they deserve.

Sunday, August 30, 2015

There are a several interesting job openings right now at the Office of Court Administration, including two support staff for the upcoming Timothy Cole Exoneration Review Commission (see here and here), which must hold its first meeting by October 31st. Your correspondent, readers may recall, is an advisory member to that panel thanks to my new job. There's another researcher slot open crunching data on indigent defense.

Qualified readers should consider applying for said positions, or else badger whoever you think would be good for this or that spot into submitting an application. Texas needs good people in all these jobs.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Gun ownership is on trial in Waco, so why aren't the NRA and all the open-carry advocates going nuts over what's happening regarding prosecutions from the the Twin Peaks biker massacre?

In McLennan County, visiting Judge James Morgan ruled after an examining trial that there was sufficient cause to have arrested a 65-year old concealed carry permit holder who wasn't wearing a biker cut but a Christian t-shirt (he's chaplain to the Bandidos and two veterans groups) because he was carrying legal personal weapons. The judge declared there was probable cause to support an arrest even though no police "officer could offer evidence that Yager conspired to commit murder, assault or any crime that day" Like everyone else arrested in the episode, Yager's bail was initially set at $1 million.

An earlier examining trial found probable cause to arrest a Brenham couple even though police agreed they were "merely present at a murder" that there was no evidence they committed.

Legality aside, how is it that a Texas judge can declare police don't need a reason to arrest legal Christian gun owners and there's not immediately an army of Second Amendment protesters beating down the DA's door? The silence from that wing of the political spectrum on this issue is deafening.

Regardless, the law doesn't seem to matter in Waco anymore. These are kangaroo courts and a flat-out embarrassment to the state.

Sunday, August 23, 2015

John MacCormack at the SA Express-News described in this morning's paper massive overbuilding at Texas county jails which has mostly gone unnoticed by the press and the public:

In June 1995, Texas jails had 64,000 beds, and were operating at 80
percent capacity, with 7,775 beds available. In June 2015, having added
nearly 30,000 beds, they were operating at 70 percent capacity, and had
19,870 available beds.

The number of federal and contract
prisoners in county jails has declined in recent years, due in part to
changes in federal policy.

Where in 2000, the U.S. Border Patrol
apprehended 1.67 million people, by 2014 the figure had dropped to fewer
than 487,000, and has stayed low since. Detentions by Immigration and
Customs Enforcement also recently have dipped after a longtime rise.

The story describes a phenomenon with which Grits readers should be familiar, in which private prison companies and local politicians carrying their water would argue that:

A detention facility built for federal inmates would create local
jobs, a steady cash flow for the county and, once the bonds were paid
off, a county-owned prison. And by using a public facilities corporation
to borrow the money, taxpayers would be shielded if anything went
wrong.

It was an easy money pitch often heard in rural Texas
during an era that made the state the private prison capital of the
country as companies built more than 50 facilities with as many as
60,000 beds.

Three decades later, the boom is over. And as the
public sector's need for private prison beds has diminished, the tally
of failing prisons in Texas is increasing, with some already vacant for
years.

The bust is evident on a rural tour of the state, where
more than a dozen once-profitable facilities have failed. At least seven
of them, which together borrowed nearly $200 million, are in arrears on
bond payments, figures from Municipal Market Analytics, a bond-research
firm, show.

"Twenty years ago, everyone was bringing prisoners
and everyone was making money. Then the state and federal governments
figured out it cost too much to hold these guys, so they started looking
at other means," Maverick County Sheriff Tom Schmerber said during a
recent visit to the detention center there.

I must admit, it's particularly odd to see the story of the prison unit in Littlefield being considered a success story, though that's how it's being portrayed.

One of the few bright spots among the communities stuck with empty
facilities is Littlefield, a city of 6,500 an hour northwest of Lubbock.
There, a 300-bed, city-owned prison that has been vacant for more than
five years is about to reopen.

"We have not been in arrears. We
have made payments twice a year since it opened in 2000. With utilities
and other costs, it's about $1 million a year, which is 13 percent of my
budget," said City Manager Mike Arismendez, who announced his
resignation last week.

Originally built for the Texas Youth Commission, the prison later held inmates from Idaho and Wyoming before closing.

Recently,
Arismendez said, after years of futile searching, the city landed a new
tenant, although it is not one that would be welcome everywhere. The
Texas inmates will be violent sex offenders who require additional
treatment before being released.

"The public seems to be very happy that we're going to reopen the facility and have jobs," he said.

MORE: See AP's version of the story, the lede of which pithily declared, "More than a dozen once-profitable private prisons in Texas have failed,
including one this month in South Texas, and records from a bond
research firm examined by the San Antonio Express-News show at least
seven are in arrears in payments on nearly $200 million in bonds."

Here are several items which merit readers' attention even if I don't have time to blog on the topics:

If coverage in the Express-News
is indicative, a community forum on civil rights and policing in San
Antonio didn't at all focus on the contract negotiations which just
began between the city and the union. But that document and the state
civil-service code which authorizes it govern SAPD disciplinary
processes (read: what happens to cops who break the rules) to an arguably greater degree than the chief or DA. Campaign Zero has offered some thoughtful suggestions on reform provisions advocates should ask for in police contracts, many of which could apply to meet-and-confer contracts Texas.

The screwups surrounding the case of Jerry Hartfield,
a mentally ill man imprisoned in Texas for 35 years after his
conviction was overturned, are as mind boggling as they are banal.

Grits didn't realize they were still doing roadside cavity searches for drugs in Harris County in 2015. You learn something new every day. A bill passed this session and which goes into effect Sept. 1st would require a warrant for law enforcement to conduct body cavity searches. I wonder how many agencies will formally have to change their practices?

Grits has no time at the moment to comment at any length. But long-time readers know the intersection of
informants and flawed arson science cuts across two of my long-time
interests, so I may come back to these items as the vicissitudes of time and convenience permit. For now, I'll encourage everyone to read both stories and offer up in the comments any observations, arguments or suggestions which may consequently arise.

Friday, August 21, 2015

Let's not mince words: It's absurd and disingenuous that authorities in Waco haven't yet released results from ballistics reports to tell us how many of the nine deceased and 18 wounded at the Twin Peaks massacre were shot by bikers and how many by cops. And every court hearing or public pronouncement where they avoid divulging that surely-by-now-known information undermines their credibility and gives the impression that many if not most victims were killed by police officers, not outlaw bikers.

Next week, we'll finally see examining trials (which are only allowed in cases where the D.A. has not sought an indictment from a grand jury) for a few defendants, but even then it seems likely the state will skate by without answering the fundamental question of who shot whom.

At Above the Law, Texas Southern's Tamara Tabo explains how DA Abel Reyna and his former law partner, District Judge Matt Johnson (who issued a gag order in the case) have successfully tamped down media access to even basic information about what happened that day. It's a good update of where we're at and why, give it a read.

Thursday, August 20, 2015

Police accountability issues have risen to the forefront of public discussion in recent months to a greater extent than at any period in Grits' adult lifetime. For example, in an Aug. 18 staff editorial, the Houston Chronicle opined:

HPD has developed the reputation of a department where police
brutality goes unpunished. In 2013, the Texas Observer ran an
award-winning, two-part article titled "Crimes Unpunished," which
documents routine problems of officers failing to do their jobs while
getting off after unnecessarily resorting to violence.

"The message is
clear: Either Houston police almost never abuse their power, or they
abuse it with impunity."

These numbers should be troubling not
only for civil rights advocates, but also for average Houston taxpayers
who want to know that their police department is doing its job
correctly. At their core, officers are supposed to serve as lookouts,
life preservers and taxis: They either protect people around them, help
people in need, or shuttle dangerous people into the criminal justice
system. Now Houstonians are paying for inconsistent results.

In
his campaign for mayor, state Rep. Sylvester Turner announced a plan
Thursday to spend $85 million on 540 more police officers to fill the
Houston Police Department's ranks ("Turner would expand police," Page
B1, Friday). This follows on Police Chief Charles McClelland's request
for $105 million to hire 1,200 new officers.

If Houston is going to hire new cops, then City Hall has to find a way for them to bring a new attitude to policing, as well.

Mayoral
candidate Ben Hall, a former city attorney, has called for more body
cameras to serve as a check on officers ("Hall plans permanent HPD body
cameras," Page B1, Aug. 12). Cameras are a right step, but they haven't
proven effective in preventing unnecessary violence from officers. After
all, a dashboard camera didn't stop a state trooper from threatening to
shoot Sandra Bland with a Taser.

Technology can't fix a broken soul.

Houston PD's disciplinary process is governed by their own special section of the state civil service code (Ch. 143 of the Local Government Code) and thus is largely immune from local intervention. The main influence a strong mayor can have will be budgetary. On the disciplinary front, perhaps the paper should begin polling local legislators to see what they might do to improve the department's ability to hold officers accountable. In the coming months I'll revisit some of the longstanding reform suggestions for the civil service code, some of which date back 20 years in my experience, maybe longer. These are longstanding problems; it's the spotlight that's new.

Texas soon will allow tens of thousands of residents convicted of
drug crimes to receive food assistance from the federal government,
joining almost every other state in ending a ban that once covered the
entire nation.

Legislation approved during this year's legislative session will make
Texas the 44th state to opt out of the ban, which former U.S. Sen. Phil
Gramm, R-Texas, inserted into President Bill Clinton's 1996 welfare
reform package.

Under the new policy, which takes effect Sept. 1, first-time drug
felons will be able to get food stamps as long as they comply with the
conditions of their parole and do not commit a second offense while
receiving assistance. They still will be ineligible for cash help
through welfare.

Residents convicted of non-drug-related felonies will continue to be
able to get benefits, as they were never included in the ban.

The change could help many of the 56,860 Texas residents currently on
Community Supervision for drug offenses, according to the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, and many more who already have cycled
out of parole. It is unknown how many of them may seek food stamps,
however.

Advocates hailed the move as a landmark reform for Texas, saying the
scant attention it received during the session belied the transformative
effect it could have on those most in need of help.

"It isn't about rewarding people convicted of crimes. It's about
making sure that they do not become repeat offenders, and to do that, we
need to give them some help," said state Rep. Senfronia Thompson,
D-Houston, who spearheaded the change via a standalone bill and then,
after that failed, through an amendment to a noncontroversial bill.
"This will give them an opportunity to regain respectability by going
out into the marketplace and making a living."

The bit about "ending the ban" in Mr. Rosenthal's lede is a bit strong. The restriction of the change to a first offense will limit the new law's effectiveness. ("Diminished the ban," perhaps? "Inched away from a total ban"?) Texas may have formally opted out of a federal ban (hurrah! we're 44th!), but then the Legislature of its own accord retained it for a large class of drug offenders. Regardless, the new law will help some people and provide a floor to build on in coming sessions.

The Houston Chronicle's Leah Binkowitz has a story (Aug. 19) titled, "Bail reform urged after Sandra Bland death." In it, Johnny Mata of the Greater Houston Coalition for Justice declared, "The death of Sandra Bland was a travesty of justice." "Sandra Bland would
probably be alive today if Texas would've had a system that is fair," he said. Here's how these groups framed the issue:

His coalition reflects more than 25 organizations across the area. He
was joined Wednesday by experts like law professor Sandra Guerra
Thompson, director of the University of Houston Law Center's Criminal
Justice Institute, who said the need for bail reform is a national
concern but is especially needed in Houston.

By following
pre-determined bail schedules, magistrates ignore their responsibility
to take individual factors into consideration to ensure that the does
not merely become a punishment for being poor, she and others argued.
Instead it's meant to reflect an individual's flight risk and potential
public safety concerns. Had a more nuanced risk assessment instrument
been used in Bland's case, she argued, "the question would not be, 'Does
she have $500?' but, 'Is she a risk to come to court?'"

Representatives
of the Harris County Sheriff's Office and the Texas Jail Association
could not be reached for comment Wednesday afternoon.

Bland's case is not unique.

"There
are far too many people in Texas jails and prisons that don't need to
be there," said Brandon Dudley, legal counsel for state Sen. Rodney
Ellis. Many of those individuals, some 75 percent in Harris County
jails, are detained simply because they cannot pay their bail.

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

This quote jumped out at me from state Sen. John Whitmire, whose Criminal Justice Committee will investigate jail safety in the wake of the Sandra Bland tragedy at the behest of the Lt. Governor: “I’m going to have zero tolerance for suicides or deaths in jails.” According to the Dallas Morning News, "In the state fiscal year that ends this month, 29 people have died by suicide in Texas jails."

But the issues surrounding "deaths in jails" are broader than just designated suicides. In 2014, there were 615 deaths in custody in Texas, by my count with 410 of them in state prisons and 103 in the custody of County Sheriffs. A few of those were in Sheriffs' custody were killed by deputies in the field, but mostly they're deaths in county jails. See the AG's master list, which regrettably does not include cause of death nor really much useful information at all.

This morning Grits pulled the names of people who died in the custody of Texas County Sheriffs since January 2014, as reported the Texas Attorney General's office. Here's the list as of today: 183 have died in Sheriffs' custody since January 2014, including 80 so far in 2015, a statistic which includes Sandra Bland and appears on pace to exceed last year's number.

Texas came far closer to requiring a warrant for police to gather cell-phone location data in 2013 than in 2015. This year, a House bill received a late vote from Chairman Abel Herrero, a bill opponent, and was never set for a floor vote by the Calendars Committee. (In 2013, the same bill was placed on a floor calendar too late to actually receive a vote.) In the Senate, Lt. Governor Dan Patrick sent it to the State Affairs Committee chaired by Joan Huffman instead of John Whitmire's Criminal Justice Committee, as would be typical of a bill adjusting the Code of Criminal Procedure. She exercised her pocket-veto power, a prerogative of committee chairs, and refused to set the bill for a hearing.

The Lt. Governor can kill legislation nearly at will in the Senate, so if Dan Patrick chooses to send a bill to Joan Huffman for disposal, there's not much anybody can do about it (except maybe amend Senate legislation in the House). But when the Calendars Committee won't set a bill with 93 joint and coauthors for a House floor vote, after the Calendars chairman voted for the bill in committee, no less, then the bill faces a larger leadership problem that extends beyond the Lt. Governor.

It's possible the federal courts will require a warrant for cell-site location information (CSLI) based on an interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, but that path is uncertain and SCOTUS has only recently begun to overcome the knee-jerk deference to law enforcement on search-and-seizure questions which has characterized its rulings throughout most of the Drug War era.

Grits would prefer a legislative warrant requirement to one written by judges, particularly ones as on this court who are as ancient as they are august. Asking octo- and septuagenarians to apply the Fourth Amendment to 21st century tech (preferably without needing to imagine tiny constables stowed away on coaches) may prove too much for them. If they screw it up, it could be hard to fix. And if there's a lesson to be learned from the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, it's that judging what's important at any given moment is a moving target that must be regularly updated as technology evolves, which is easier done in statute than in case law.

OTOH, one hopes SCOTUS does implement a warrant requirement since a state-level bill in Texas faces clear, persistent obstacles in both legislative chambers, not because the membership of both bodies don't support the bill but because leadership has denied them the opportunity to demonstrate it.

Sunday, August 16, 2015

Having just returned from a much-needed and oft-interrupted two-week vacation, your correspondent today spent a little time perusing the news I've missed while I've been focused elsewhere. Here are a few highlights which caught my eye and may interest Grits readers:

Ana Correa of the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition has taken a job as criminal justice program officer at the Public Welfare Foundation and will be moving to Washington D.C. in the fall. The Houston Chronicle published a somewhat hagiographic announcement praising Grits' long-time ally and some-time employer.

Houston mayoral candidate and state Rep. Sylvester Turner has proposed increasing manpower at the Houston PD by about 10 percent. Grits has opposed hiring more cops in Austin, where we've hired too many cops at too-high salaries over the last 15 years, but in Houston the case for more officers is stronger. "The department employed 5,470 officers in 1998, and is projected to
operate this budget year with about 5,260, despite enormous population
growth during that time." The big problem, unstated in the article: Police pensions are already underfunded in Houston and adding more officers without fixing the situation exacerbates the situation. Even without factoring in pensions, the Chronicle estimated Turner underestimates the cost of expanding the police force by more than $20 million.

Last month Grits published an interview with Rebeccah Bernhardt of the Texas Fair Defense Project on high caseloads by lawyers appointed to represent indigent defendants in Texas. Now, a lawsuit out of California will address whether public defenders handling 700 cases per year can effectively represent their clients. In Texas, lawyers with caseloads that high experience an even greater burden because they typically must also manage a small business - their own practice.

Doug Smith, a former inmate and past colleague of your correspondent when I worked for the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition, has a new blog on which he published a letter to a human resources manager discussing his criminal history and why it shouldn't preclude him from employment. Good read.

What if mass incarceration actually increases crime? According to this report:

A new paper from University of Michigan economics professor Michael Mueller-Smith measures how much incapacitation reduced crime. He looked at court records from Harris County, Texas from 1980 to 2009.Mueller-Smith
observed that in Harris County people charged with similar crimes
received totally different sentences depending on the judge to whom they
were randomly assigned. Mueller-Smith then tracked what happened to
these prisoners. He estimated that each year in prison increases the
odds that a prisoner would reoffend by 5.6% a quarter. Even people who
went to prison for lesser crimes wound up committing more serious
offenses subsequently, the more time they spent in prison. His
conclusion: Any benefit from taking criminals out of the general
population is more than off-set by the increase in crime from turning
small offenders into career criminals.

To reduce prison populations by half, as the #Cut50 movement has suggested, would require reassessing sentences for violent as well as nonviolent offenders. Here's a rare op ed focused on why and how to reduce incarceration for offenders convicted of violent crimes.

The New York Times last week published an excellent story
on the nexus between high bail and innocent defendants pleading guilty
to avoid losing their jobs or remaining incarcerated for long stretches
awaiting trial.

Monday, August 10, 2015

A pair of researchers from UT's Institute of Urban Policy Research and Analysis suggested in a Fort Worth Star-Telegram op ed last week that "Reinforcing a national narrative that celebrates the success of the Texas model [of probation and parole reform] spreads harmful misinformation about the ability of fiscal austerity designs to substantively reduce incarceration and racial disproportionality."

Regular readers know Grits is sympathetic to criticisms that de-incarceration proponents overstate the import of the 2007 reforms dubbed "the Texas model" (see here, e.g.). Those changes happened eight years ago and, until the state raised thresholds for property theft this spring to adjust for inflation, there hadn't been another significant bill to stem incarceration since then. Like an aging high-school jock reliving former glory, there are only so many times folks want to hear about how great you were back in the day. Boasts about the "Texas model" exude a whiff of that sort of dated self aggrandizement and deserve rebuttal.

But it's also wrong to say those reforms failed because the state did not "reduc[e] the number of people Texas incarcerates" or that the reforms were solely rooted in "fiscal austerity." That lacks historical context.

For starters, those reforms included more than $200 million per biennium in new money for treatment and diversion programming, which hardly bespeaks fiscal austerity. That's a significant investment which the Legislature has sustained, if not added to, in subsequent sessions.

And to criticize the reforms for not reducing incarceration ignores the situation faced by Texas state leaders at the time. Dating from the period when Ann Richards and a Democratic controlled Legislature nearly tripled the size of the prison system, Texas' prison population had been on an uninterrupted upward trajectory and was predicted to add 17,000 more prisoners to its bloated rolls between 2007 and 2012. Instead, the prison population declined slightly overall since then, creating the opportunity to close three prisons for the first time in the state's history.

That's no small thing, in this writer's view, even if there's far more to be done.

Grits considers it wrong and counterproductive to downplay the importance of halting prison population growth or reducing incarceration rates. The real, more substantive criticism to me is that, afterward, our politicians rested on their laurels and joined the national speakers' circuit to pat themselves on the back instead of doubling down and finishing the job over the subsequent eight years.

I was also non-plussed to read the suggestion that reform efforts are "best led by the experts — those who have experienced incarceration themselves, together with their families." Really? Who are these inmates and inmate-family groups who will devise de-incarceration policies that our Republican legislature will enact? This is a politically correct throwaway line, not a serious comment. While there are a handful of former inmates who are capable of participating in the process at the conservative Texas Legislature and understand what will move Republican lawmakers, most struggle just to find employment, meet parole requirements, and keep their heads above water. Insisting that only ex-inmates are qualified to lead reform efforts sets the project up to fail.

Worse, that stance allows more mainstream constituencies to abdicate responsibility. Folks in the free world - mostly Democrats, as a matter of historical fact - created the laws and policies which spawned mass incarceration in Texas, and those of us in the free world must take responsibility for reversing it. This can't just be something that's mainly the problem of incarcerated people and their families. We need conservative leaders, progressive leaders, and community activists; we need law enforcement leaders, thoughtful prosecutors, lawyers, and policy wonks; we need lots and lots of enthusiastic people with good ideas from all walks of life. Mass incarceration is not just a prisoners' problem.

Grits also isn't a fan of the authors' "call for racial impact statements for all criminal justice policies, practices and proposals." With certain notable exceptions like the drug war and police interactions at traffic stops, I don't find it constructive nor useful to view most criminal justice policy through a racial frame. Do I consider the justice system color-blind? Of course not. But neither do I see every prisoner as a victim of the system and I'm sympathetic to folks in minority communities who are disproportionately victims of crime and deserve protection.

According to Politifact, for example, "young black men, ages 14 to 24, suffer disproportionately from murder. While the numbers have been falling since the mid-1990s, in 2008 about 16 percent of homicide victims were young and black. As a group, they represented just 1 percent of the population." And since overwhelmingly most of those murders are committed by other young black men, in truth some disproportionality in prison populations is entirely reasonable, even if it's not politically correct to say so. (Grits sympathizes more with a racial disproportionality critique if one cabins discussion to the drug war, where differences in incarceration rates are far less defensible.)

I suppose I'm arguing for a dose of realism when it comes to de-incarceration, mainly because I want it to actually happen instead of just talking about it. There are systemic stakeholders - cops, prosecutors, judges, probation departments, the prison system, and of course the politicians in charge of it all - who can be ignored in an op ed but not in the legislative/policy arena.

This column, however well-intended, charts a path for reform which leads down a dead-end.

Texas' 2007 reforms were important but should be viewed as a first step, not a final result. Much more remains to be done and there appear to be legislators in both parties who intend to try, as evidenced by juvie de-incarceration and the successful effort to adjust property thresholds for inflation. So while I agree with many of the authors' aims in this column, greater strategic and tactical acumen will be necessary to accomplish those goals.

Sunday, August 09, 2015

Before leaving on vacation, your correspondent conducted an interview with Amanda Marzullo, Policy Director for the Texas Defender Service, about a report (pdf) that the group produced with Texas Appleseed (with support from attorneys at Locke Lord LLP) about implementation of the Michael Morton Act. Give it a listen:

"I always tell people interested in these issues that your blog is the most important news source, and have had high-ranking corrections officials tell me they read it regularly."

- Scott Medlock, Texas Civil Rights Project

"a helluva blog"

- Solomon Moore, NY Times criminal justice correspondent

"Congrats on building one of the most read and important blogs on a specific policy area that I've ever seen"

- Donald Lee, Texas Conference of Urban Counties

GFB "is a fact-packed, trustworthy reporter of the weirdness that makes up corrections and criminal law in the Lone Star State" and has "shown more naked emperors than Hans Christian Andersen ever did."

-Attorney Bob Mabry, Conroe

"Grits really shows the potential of a single-state focused criminal law blog"

- Corey Yung, Sex Crimes Blog

"I regard Grits for Breakfast as one of the most welcome and helpful vehicles we elected officials have for understanding the problems and their solutions."

Tommy Adkisson,Bexar County Commissioner

"dude really has a pragmatic approach to crime fighting, almost like he’s some kind of statistics superhero"

- Rob Patterson, The Austin Post"Scott Henson's 'Grits for Breakfast' is one of the most insightful blogs on criminal justice issues in Texas."

- Texas Public Policy Foundation

"Nobody does it better or works harder getting it right"

David Jennings, aka "Big Jolly"

"I appreciate the fact that you obviously try to see both sides of an issue, regardless of which side you end up supporting."

Kim Vickers,Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and EducationGrits for Breakfast "has probably broken more criminal justice stories than any TX reporter, but stays under the radar. Fascinating guy."

Maurice Chammah,The Marshall Project"unrestrained and uneducated"

John Bradley,Former Williamson County District Attorney, now former Attorney General of Palau

"our favorite blog"

- Texas District and County Attorneys Association Twitter feed"Scott Henson ... writes his terrific blog Grits for Breakfast from an outhouse in Texas."